""Why should current Moosehead customers have to pay for the prescriptions of a retiree who made beer that his grandfather pissed out 20 years ago""

If it is a properly run business, which this seems to be, money would have been strategically set aside in a "retirement fund" in the past to pay for retiree benefits today (so, today's customers would not be paying for that at all). A problem with some such funds is the companies skim off or take money out, assuming they can pay it back later. If profits do not match expectations, a shortfall can exist. But, I do not know this to be the case here.

Most medical costs (for example, prescriptions) come later in life. So, it is reasonable for unionized employees to seek such benefits in contracts, versus trying to pay through the nose when they get older and have a lower income when retired. I suspect it is also predictible for companies to try and reduce benefits, given that globalization and "free trade agreements" has put pressures on companies to match third world benefits paid to workers. Many good firms, with solid profits resist this temptation, if they have a loyal and productive work force.

I never heard a brewery worker complain about poor wages or benefits (and I have known a few). So, I suspect they have a fairly good salary, benefit, and retirement package.